Of course it doesnt take a great scholar to do so. But it is important that falsehoods be nibbed in the bud , no matter how simplistic before they gain currency and become both popular and more complex by mixing truth with fiction.

see, we have to look at it this way. People from Hindu vedic culture migrated to other parts of the world and founded all the advanced civilizations of the world.

We have 3 proofs.

1. Archaeological evidence – eg from south American Temples (Mayan) to Stonehenge in Britain

The Hindu temples abounded in ancient Britain when Vedic culture pervaded the West. It has been already explained above that place-names ending in ‘shire’ testify to the existence of Shiva temples. Ancient Hindu temples lie in unrecognizable ruins throughout Great Britain and Ireland. Christian fanaticism prevents modern European scholars from publicizing them. One such famous temple existed on the Hill of Tara, alias Taragarh, (in today’s Indian parlance), in Ireland. The Hill of Tara consequently a sacred site on which Sanskrit-speaking Hindu Kshatriya kings used to be crowned for centuries. A 5000 years-old Vedic temple was discovered late in 1997 A. D. in Stanton Drew village in Somerset.

Another famous temple is the wel-known stonehenge. It has been carbon-dated to be of 2000 B. C. The temple has astronomical marking to chart the raising and setting of the sun and moon. Its presiding deity used to be taken in a procession to the Avon river three miles away. The deity was so consecrated as to be illumined by the rising sun’s rays on the longest day. These are all hindu Vedic traditions. Ancient churches throughout Great Britain and Europe are astronomically oriented which proves that they are captured Hindu temples since Hindus were the only people known to be shaping their lives day after day on astronomical considerations at that remote age. The information about the Stonehenge and its above-mentioned implications is recorded in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Godfrey Higgin’s book titled “The Celtic Druids” leads valuable evidence indicating that Hindu had colonized the British isles long before the Roman conquest. That book, published in 1829 A. D. is available in the British Museum library in London. Under Roman rule London was known as Londonium. This is a corruption of the much ancient Sanskrit terms Nondanium signifying a pleasing place.

3. Sanskrit: Brihat-sthan (Great land or Island) -> Britain. In course of time Brihatsthan was corrupted to Britain in popular speech. That Britain itself signified ‘the Great’ isles was forgotten but the memory of ‘greatness’ persisted while the Sanskrit connotation was forgotten. That led to the addition of the objective ‘Great’ which explains the current name Great Britain.The term Anglo-Saxon is Sanskrit ‘Angla Saka Sunuh’ implying the descendants of the Sakas in England. Surnames like Peterson, Anderson, Jacobson are of the Sanskrit, Hindu tradition of describing a person as son of such and such. In some cases the English ending ‘Son’ is the earlier Hindu ending ‘Sen’. Thus Anderson is the English corruption of the Hindu name indrasen. Ireland is Arya Sthan and Scotland is Kshatra-sthan. Wales in Sanskrit signifies a seaside region.

4.Sanskrit: Devaneshwar (Land of gods) -> Devonshire

5.Sanskrit: Ramstan, (“Place of Lord Rama) -> Ramstein

6. Sanskrit: Daityasthan, “Land of the Daityas” -> Deutchland

7. Sanskrit: Sharman (Common hindu surname) -> German

8. Sanskrit: Palustin (Vedic sage) -> Palestine

9. Sanskrit: Skanda + Naviya ->Skanda is the son of Lord Siva. Naviya is Sanskrit for naval settlement. Scandinavians were the mariner descendants of the Vedic ksatriyas who worshipped Skanda.

Hahaha, these things always pop up. Good, the only way to get rid of these mad men it seems is for more Indians to push back against them. It's not as if books and articles on proper methodology aren't easy to get hold of. It's sad because the truth is often way more interesting.

For example, bhumi and humanus....well the later is actually related to the same word in sanskrit that gives us Kshatriya (kshat), isn't that more interesting?

That said quickly glancing over your blog, if you want critique:

"Please provide proof of this bias. Modern European scholars aren't known to be Christian fanatics but secularists who are often hostile to Christianity."

I wouldn't say we're hostile to Christianity, merely indifferent. Like any claim it has to pass the same standard of evidence, that's all. It's this same principle, ingrained in western scholarship, that has so many Indians here talking **** about Indophobic bias. Tough, that's reality.

"Complete rubbish. The British were named actually for tribe in France called the Brittani(today known as Bretons) by Julius Caesar as he was informed that the group of people who resided in the islands of Britain was the same as in northern France. At the time, both Britain and France were Celtic populated, so that was a fair assumption to make.
Out of curiosity, as per the ancients what was so great about the islands?"

The island was known in the local language as Prydein, which the Romans called Britannia. The Britons (Bretons) in Brittany, France are a later importation. They left Britain when the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Fries came over. The reason it's called "Great Britain" is to differentiate the two, Great and Lesser Britain (or Brittany, with a diminutive ending).

" Ireland is Arya Sthan

On firmer ground. Indeed Ireland as called by the native population is Erie which is a corruption of Arya. It finds its way into girls names such a Erin."

Again, no. First off if it was related to "Arya" it would not be a corruption but a descendant from the same route. A lot of 19th century people fancied this etymology but its without sense or basis, the original name was basically from "piHwerjon". The processes that render it into Eire are the same which give us Athair for father in Irish . The first, that its related to Aryavarta and Iran, remains a common misconception to this day.

Anyway just some quick,hopefully helpful, thoughts from what I've read.

The pseudo-history of P N Oak has little implication how modern generations of Indians starts to see the India's history. There is far growing awareness among Indians against the lies that comes with leftist version of Indian history which was nothing but continued from where British left in 1947 aka British colonial onslaught against Hinduism, Indian culture and political agenda of promoting North India and South India divide.

Hahaha, these things always pop up. Good, the only way to get rid of these mad men it seems is for more Indians to push back against them. It's not as if books and articles on proper methodology aren't easy to get hold of. It's sad because the truth is often way more interesting.

For example, bhumi and humanus....well the later is actually related to the same word in sanskrit that gives us Kshatriya (kshat), isn't that more interesting?

That said quickly glancing over your blog, if you want critique:

"Please provide proof of this bias. Modern European scholars aren't known to be Christian fanatics but secularists who are often hostile to Christianity."

I wouldn't say we're hostile to Christianity, merely indifferent. Like any claim it has to pass the same standard of evidence, that's all. It's this same principle, ingrained in western scholarship, that has so many Indians here talking **** about Indophobic bias. Tough, that's reality.

"Complete rubbish. The British were named actually for tribe in France called the Brittani(today known as Bretons) by Julius Caesar as he was informed that the group of people who resided in the islands of Britain was the same as in northern France. At the time, both Britain and France were Celtic populated, so that was a fair assumption to make.
Out of curiosity, as per the ancients what was so great about the islands?"

The island was known in the local language as Prydein, which the Romans called Britannia. The Britons (Bretons) in Brittany, France are a later importation. They left Britain when the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Fries came over. The reason it's called "Great Britain" is to differentiate the two, Great and Lesser Britain (or Brittany, with a diminutive ending).

" Ireland is Arya Sthan

On firmer ground. Indeed Ireland as called by the native population is Erie which is a corruption of Arya. It finds its way into girls names such a Erin."

Again, no. First off if it was related to "Arya" it would not be a corruption but a descendant from the same route. A lot of 19th century people fancied this etymology but its without sense or basis, the original name was basically from "piHwerjon". The processes that render it into Eire are the same which give us Athair for father in Irish . The first, that its related to Aryavarta and Iran, remains a common misconception to this day.

Anyway just some quick,hopefully helpful, thoughts from what I've read.

The pseudo-history of P N Oak has little implication how modern generations of Indians starts to see the India's history. There is far growing awareness among Indians against the lies that comes with leftist version of Indian history which was nothing but continued from where British left in 1947 aka British colonial onslaught against Hinduism, Indian culture and political agenda of promoting North India and South India divide.

Oh Im aware of Vadakayil. I dedicated quite a few blogposts addressing his nonsense. And he is aware of me: he declared me a Zionist agent and threatened me with jail as apparently I am on the security watch list of Indian intelligence agenices

Oh Im aware of Vadakayil. I dedicated quite a few blogposts addressing his nonsense. And he is aware of me: he declared me a Zionist agent and threatened me with jail as apparently I am on the security watch list of Indian intelligence agenices

There's another really funny book I found on Google Books rooting around one day, I keep trying to find it but I can't. It details the dynasties of Vedic Hindu kings going back to 8000 BCE, and features an extra short about Ashoka in 1600 BCE. The funniest part was the five star review acclaiming it as "our great cultural history."

Of course it doesnt take a great scholar to do so. But it is important that falsehoods be nibbed in the bud , no matter how simplistic before they gain currency and become both popular and more complex by mixing truth with fiction.

see, we have to look at it this way. People from Hindu vedic culture migrated to other parts of the world and founded all the advanced civilizations of the world.

We have 3 proofs.

1. Archaeological evidence – eg from south American Temples (Mayan) to Stonehenge in Britain

The Hindu temples abounded in ancient Britain when Vedic culture pervaded the West. It has been already explained above that place-names ending in ‘shire’ testify to the existence of Shiva temples. Ancient Hindu temples lie in unrecognizable ruins throughout Great Britain and Ireland. Christian fanaticism prevents modern European scholars from publicizing them. One such famous temple existed on the Hill of Tara, alias Taragarh, (in today’s Indian parlance), in Ireland. The Hill of Tara consequently a sacred site on which Sanskrit-speaking Hindu Kshatriya kings used to be crowned for centuries. A 5000 years-old Vedic temple was discovered late in 1997 A. D. in Stanton Drew village in Somerset.

Another famous temple is the wel-known stonehenge. It has been carbon-dated to be of 2000 B. C. The temple has astronomical marking to chart the raising and setting of the sun and moon. Its presiding deity used to be taken in a procession to the Avon river three miles away. The deity was so consecrated as to be illumined by the rising sun’s rays on the longest day. These are all hindu Vedic traditions. Ancient churches throughout Great Britain and Europe are astronomically oriented which proves that they are captured Hindu temples since Hindus were the only people known to be shaping their lives day after day on astronomical considerations at that remote age. The information about the Stonehenge and its above-mentioned implications is recorded in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Godfrey Higgin’s book titled “The Celtic Druids” leads valuable evidence indicating that Hindu had colonized the British isles long before the Roman conquest. That book, published in 1829 A. D. is available in the British Museum library in London. Under Roman rule London was known as Londonium. This is a corruption of the much ancient Sanskrit terms Nondanium signifying a pleasing place.

3. Sanskrit: Brihat-sthan (Great land or Island) -> Britain. In course of time Brihatsthan was corrupted to Britain in popular speech. That Britain itself signified ‘the Great’ isles was forgotten but the memory of ‘greatness’ persisted while the Sanskrit connotation was forgotten. That led to the addition of the objective ‘Great’ which explains the current name Great Britain.The term Anglo-Saxon is Sanskrit ‘Angla Saka Sunuh’ implying the descendants of the Sakas in England. Surnames like Peterson, Anderson, Jacobson are of the Sanskrit, Hindu tradition of describing a person as son of such and such. In some cases the English ending ‘Son’ is the earlier Hindu ending ‘Sen’. Thus Anderson is the English corruption of the Hindu name indrasen. Ireland is Arya Sthan and Scotland is Kshatra-sthan. Wales in Sanskrit signifies a seaside region.

4.Sanskrit: Devaneshwar (Land of gods) -> Devonshire

5.Sanskrit: Ramstan, (“Place of Lord Rama) -> Ramstein

6. Sanskrit: Daityasthan, “Land of the Daityas” -> Deutchland

7. Sanskrit: Sharman (Common hindu surname) -> German

8. Sanskrit: Palustin (Vedic sage) -> Palestine

9. Sanskrit: Skanda + Naviya ->Skanda is the son of Lord Siva. Naviya is Sanskrit for naval settlement. Scandinavians were the mariner descendants of the Vedic ksatriyas who worshipped Skanda.

It is indeed disgraceful and most unfortunate ! I totally agree that this is damaging to the legitimate cause of correcting the misrepresentation of Indian history.

For example, we have loony theories like Aryan Migration which is totally factually unsustainable. It is a very weak theory that can really be ground into the dust if there is a proper scholarly effort on that front. The implications of that would be enormous. There is strong reason to believe that Indo-Europeans could have had their origins in North/ NW India. Scholarship on proving that would be such a worthwhile goal. The thirst for glorification of Indian history, of these cranks, can also be whetted.

But no serious scholarly effort is being made on that front. Instead we have outlandish nonsense like what you've quoted.

It is indeed disgraceful and most unfortunate ! I totally agree that this is damaging to the legitimate cause of correcting the misrepresentation of Indian history.

For example, we have loony theories like Aryan Migration which is totally factually unsustainable. It is a very weak theory that can really be ground into the dust if there is a proper scholarly effort on that front. The implications of that would be enormous. There is strong reason to believe that Indo-Europeans could have had their origins in North/ NW India. Scholarship on proving that would be such a worthwhile goal. The thirst for glorification of Indian history, of these cranks, can also be whetted.

But no serious scholarly effort is being made on that front. Instead we have outlandish nonsense like what you've quoted.

That's because when you approach scholarship with the predetermined aim to show something as wrong because you believe it to be racist/motivated/prejudicial rather than analysing the evidence then you get theories like this. People are so convinced of the wrongness of theores like the AMT because it doesn't suit their preconceived notions that they keep tying to "grind it into dust" rather than actually work with the data. The theory becomes more than the evidence and rather than making theories fit facts they start tying to make facts fit the theories. If you're going to approach academia with the "AMT is weak scholarship we need to grind it into dust because we have "strong reason" to believe otherwise so let's see what the facts are" you're theories will be no different from that of Oak or Knapp.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.